"The poor": kill them

Evolution is not a benevolent positive force, we do not evolve towards what is "good", merely towards what suits continued existence in the environment. Embracing the "natural" is about as much a lie as blindly embracing any other system or ideology. With our intellect we transcend, at least partially, the bounds of our own evolution. It's so easy to speak in pseudo-scientific babble about what is healthy and what isn't; as has been demonstrated at least once, it is perfectly possible to have a healthy diet only eating McDonalds. And yet how can you blame those that subsist on energy dense trash because that's all they have? The answer is to hate/pity these people because they "can't stand on their own two feet"?

Fuck off and die. Who cares whether evolution is good? Who said it is? It doesn't matter if it is good or not, what does matter is that your body is not designed to exist on calories alone. You cannot synthesize your own vitamin C or calcium, two name just two out of very, very many examples. If you change the ingredients without changing the formula, you're going to get a fucked-up result. Pointing out this obvious fact does not make one "biased in favor of the old ingredients," but it does make you a fucking tool. Which is reinforced by your subsequent moping about how the po' can't find vegetables, and how good McDonald's is. I bet you're South American.

Not designed to? Okay. In any case, it's the truth that the western poor feed on these more out of necessity than desire or apathy. The point is not at all that McDonalds is good, rather that the nuance of choice in these nations does not exist for everyone. Even on a McDonalds menu, what can you possibly pick that is efficient in terms of your energy requirement? Too little will not suffice. The poor of other nations are not in similar straits because they literally starve. The jab at nature was not a rejection of the truth that exists there, but a rejection of it as absolute truth.

The only (well, not the only...) claim needing evidence here is yours. Differences of caste may always have existed, but to say that they correspond directly to the "innate qualities of the human being" does not follow. This would mean that in all instances of caste division (let alone a visible caste system) everyone behaved in the way prescribed to, predicted by, or expected of them by their caste, which you yourself proved incorrect in your previous post when you detailed how the French aristocratic class became "corrupted".

The caste system is the traditional (and best) model for describing qualitative difference between human beings. It has existed in virtually all traditional civilisations in some form or another, suggesting that it possesses a degree of universality. Of course there are exceptions, as there are with any system, but exceptions do not disprove rules and it is an extremely biased logic which claims otherwise.

I would like to add that when speaking of the notion of castes, both in terms of intrinsic human differences in potential spirituality and a corresponding institutionalization, it is important to correctly the cause-and-effect relationship between the two: spirituality determines caste, not the other way around. The castes correspond to differing levels of spiritual potential (imagine a vertical axis), just as the races correspond to various psychosomatic possibilities (horizontal axes): this is the traditional view. What can be called "natural castes" persist even with the disintegration of the institution.

Apropos I will leave you with a quotation from Frithjof Schuon's "Survey of Integral Anthropology," remarking also on the somewhat problematic phenomenon of genius:

Quote

It is not of institutionalized--hence necessarily approximate--castes that we wish to speak here, but of natural castes, those based on the intrinsic nature of individuals; the institutional castes are merely their legal applications, and in fact they are more often symbolical rather than effective as regards the real potentialities of persons, above all in later times; nonetheless they have a certain practical and psychological justification, otherwise they would not exist traditionally.

The essential point here is that mankind is psychologically differentiated by gifts and by ideals: there is the ideal of the sage or the saint, then the ideal of the hero; next the ideal of the respectable and "reasonable" average man, and finally that of the man who seeks no more than the pleasures of the moment, and whose virtue consists in obeying and being faithful. But, aside from men who are psychologically homogeneous, there is also the man "without a center," who is capable of "all and nothing," and who is readily an imitator and also a destroyer. Let us hasten to add, however, that in this world there are distinctions and shades of difference in everything, and that if we must take note of inferior human possibilities it is not in order to pronounce verdicts upon individuals; for "what is impossible for man, is possible for God."

We mentioned "gifts" above, and this allows us now to consider the phenomenon of talent or genius. First of all, it is all too clear that genius has value only through its content, and is even of no worth in the absence of human values which ought to accompany it; and that consequently, it would be better for a "great man" with a problematical character to have less talent and more virtue. The cause of genius is a hypertrophy or supersaturation due to heredity or, as the transmigrationists would say, to a certain karma, hence to the merits or demerits of a former life, as the case may be. The karma is in any case benefic when it is the vehicle of spiritual values or when it gives rise to them; obviously, the great sages and saints of all traditional climates were men of genius--but they were not merely that, precisely.

The only (well, not the only...) claim needing evidence here is yours. Differences of caste may always have existed, but to say that they correspond directly to the "innate qualities of the human being" does not follow. This would mean that in all instances of caste division (let alone a visible caste system) everyone behaved in the way prescribed to, predicted by, or expected of them by their caste, which you yourself proved incorrect in your previous post when you detailed how the French aristocratic class became "corrupted".

The caste system is the traditional (and best) model for describing qualitative difference between human beings. It has existed in virtually all traditional civilisations in some form or another, suggesting that it possesses a degree of universality. Of course there are exceptions, as there are with any system, but exceptions do not disprove rules and it is an extremely biased logic which claims otherwise.

I would like to add that when speaking of the notion of castes, both in terms of intrinsic human differences in potential spirituality and a corresponding institutionalization, it is important to correctly the cause-and-effect relationship between the two: spirituality determines caste, not the other way around. The castes correspond to differing levels of spiritual potential (imagine a vertical axis), just as the races correspond to various psychosomatic possibilities (horizontal axes): this is the traditional view. What can be called "natural castes" persist even with the disintegration of the institution.

Apropos I will leave you with a quotation from Frithjof Schuon's "Survey of Integral Anthropology," remarking also on the somewhat problematic phenomenon of genius:

Quote

It is not of institutionalized--hence necessarily approximate--castes that we wish to speak here, but of natural castes, those based on the intrinsic nature of individuals; the institutional castes are merely their legal applications, and in fact they are more often symbolical rather than effective as regards the real potentialities of persons, above all in later times; nonetheless they have a certain practical and psychological justification, otherwise they would not exist traditionally.

The essential point here is that mankind is psychologically differentiated by gifts and by ideals: there is the ideal of the sage or the saint, then the ideal of the hero; next the ideal of the respectable and "reasonable" average man, and finally that of the man who seeks no more than the pleasures of the moment, and whose virtue consists in obeying and being faithful. But, aside from men who are psychologically homogeneous, there is also the man "without a center," who is capable of "all and nothing," and who is readily an imitator and also a destroyer. Let us hasten to add, however, that in this world there are distinctions and shades of difference in everything, and that if we must take note of inferior human possibilities it is not in order to pronounce verdicts upon individuals; for "what is impossible for man, is possible for God."

We mentioned "gifts" above, and this allows us now to consider the phenomenon of talent or genius. First of all, it is all too clear that genius has value only through its content, and is even of no worth in the absence of human values which ought to accompany it; and that consequently, it would be better for a "great man" with a problematical character to have less talent and more virtue. The cause of genius is a hypertrophy or supersaturation due to heredity or, as the transmigrationists would say, to a certain karma, hence to the merits or demerits of a former life, as the case may be. The karma is in any case benefic when it is the vehicle of spiritual values or when it gives rise to them; obviously, the great sages and saints of all traditional climates were men of genius--but they were not merely that, precisely.

Thank you for describing this division between natural caste and institutionalized caste. In light of these definitions, let me clarify my original statement:

The only (well, not the only...) claim needing evidence here is yours. Differences of caste may always have existed, but to say that they correspond directly to the "innate qualities of the human being" does not follow. This would mean that in all instances of caste division (let alone a visible caste system) everyone behaved in the way prescribed to, predicted by, or expected of them by their caste, which you yourself proved incorrect in your previous post when you detailed how the French aristocratic class became "corrupted".

The caste system is the traditional (and best) model for describing qualitative difference between human beings. It has existed in virtually all traditional civilisations in some form or another, suggesting that it possesses a degree of universality. Of course there are exceptions, as there are with any system, but exceptions do not disprove rules and it is an extremely biased logic which claims otherwise.

It may be the best method for describing qualitative difference between human beings, but saying that a caste in a caste system is a "caste of the soul" is demonstrably false by, as I pointed out, your own example. Nothing you've said here rebuts this.

My aim in attacking your statement was to try to route a convenient mistake you seem close to making; that is to operate from a merit-based view of humanity, and then to assume that current institutions, because they appear to be merit based actually are.

The institutions that set up such excuses for "caste systems" in our society are equally spiritually impoverished as those that protest it, but I think right now your original post reads as an endorsement of one group in an attempt at salvation from the other. Endorsing greedy, high society, Yankee-educated oil tycoons won't save you from the sub-human drones who work their drills, if you'll allow me to take the comparison into admittedly absurd hyperbole to prove a point, but which your intelligence obviously doesn't require.

My aim in attacking your statement was to try to route a convenient mistake you seem close to making; that is to operate from a merit-based view of humanity, and then to assume that current institutions, because they appear to be merit based actually are.

Not designed to? Okay. In any case, it's the truth that the western poor feed on these more out of necessity than desire or apathy. The point is not at all that McDonalds is good, rather that the nuance of choice in these nations does not exist for everyone. Even on a McDonalds menu, what can you possibly pick that is efficient in terms of your energy requirement? Too little will not suffice. The poor of other nations are not in similar straits because they literally starve. The jab at nature was not a rejection of the truth that exists there, but a rejection of it as absolute truth.

What would lead you to think I'm South American? I'm curious.

Because you sound like one. Or maybe an Eastern European.

Yes, designed to. Just as your elbow is designed to pivot your forearm towards your shoulder at a specific angle, and your skin is designed to keep you from getting infected with every disease on the planet within the next few hours. Do you have trouble understanding a statement as truthful as "humans weren't designed to live on calories alone?" Is your anti-elitist screed so dogmatic that you automatically assume that talking about something being designed betrays a belief in a personifiable designER?

As for the idea that the poorer denizens of Western societies feed on empty calories out of necessity, har har. Shitty food that will keep you alive (ramen won't) is only slightly cheaper than buying actual produce, and there are lots of ways to save money even if you don't make much. Some years ago, there was a period of quite a few months during which the only work I had was between ten to twenty hours a week at a rate barely above minimum wage, with no prior savings to make that period any easier to get through. I still made ends meet. It's not that hard to exercise self-control and sacrifice some of the things people take for granted. Man up, folks.

"I survived for a few months, alone, on minimum wage, therefore the poor are weak."

"Anti-elitist" is strange to hear. I would think the quality of empathy, of desiring better for your fellow man, would be a heroic quality. Can anyone read this thread and think "elite"? It's not about some great liberal equalizer but... fuck the poor? No, fuck you.

My aim in attacking your statement was to try to route a convenient mistake you seem close to making; that is to operate from a merit-based view of humanity, and then to assume that current institutions, because they appear to be merit based actually are.

Indeed, this is an easy mistake to make.

... Really? It seems to me to be the largest, shiniest pitfall at the bottom of the hill on which I'm standing, with neon signs pointing towards it saying "IT'S A TRAP".

As far as killing the poor goes, does this extend as far as ascetics, who willfully renounce material wealth? Or are they not considered poor?

Rather than simply agree to kill the "poor", surely we should just kill those who are so poor of spirit that they can make nothing for themselves? Certainly, there are many who could accumulate wealth, but choose not to. Similarly, plenty enough successful people are absolute cretins.

This is such a typical "far" right view of society. To reduce the success of society in terms of monetary allotment, to me, is such an obvious mistake. It assumes a few things.

1. The rich are rich because they are intellectually superior, and have worked hard to achieve what they have instead of sitting around hoping for money to land in their laps unlike everyone who is "poor".

2. The rich are independent from the poor. I doubt there are very many that are rich without making others poor. In societies that have a larger amount of rich people, are likely to also have a disproportionate amount of those who are poor.

3. Only "poor" people are alcoholics and go to jail. The only difference is that the rich have the means to buy their way out, while the poor would rot in jail.

Quote

If you're poor in this country, it's because you're dumb as rocks and/or have impulse control issues.

So by this logic, if you are rich, you aren't dumb as rocks and/or have impulse control issues? Are you kidding me? Turn on the TV or radio, you'll have a great place to start for finding examples of the stupid/impulsive rich.

Quote

There is no "the poor." There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

Bullshit. This assumes that the more income you have, the more you have your shit together. A more accurate statement would be the degree to which your income supports your lifestyle. There are varying degrees to which people's fuckups destroy their lives or are just a minor inconvenience.

You aren't going to get rid of the couch-sitting, glue sniffing, inbred poor by simply killing them. The rich, or even the moderately wealthy are so by making others poorer.

The OP's thesis assumes that the status quo in the U.S. gives everyone the same opportunities and advantages, and it is up to each individual to make a choice to be successful or be a waste of space.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. People can be poor because the live in a shitty system, they can also be poor because they are fucked up and continue to make bad choices. It is never all one or the other.

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. People can be poor because the live in a shitty system, they can also be poor because they are fucked up and continue to make bad choices. It is never all one or the other.

This view is not conducive to casual indictment or statements of ideology.

We'll talk about the poor. Then we'll talk about "the poor" (substituting monetary wealth for "spiritual" or "intellectual" wealth). Then we're right back at square one.

I hope you are giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he is so ignorant as to confuse a South American attitude with an Eastern European one, he is either incredibly ignorant or simply insulting you. He appears pretty bright so he must be just acting like an asshole. He's probably a Germanic of some flavor enraged at his own peoples decadence, so he takes his rage out on people like the Pole and the Argentine, who despite being less wealthy, are relatively culturally intact.

As an aside, anyone who would say there is an Eastern European attitude or a South American attitude is a dumbass and definitely an outsider to these areas. Poles and Romanians have little in common and an Argentine and a Peruvian have even less.

There is no "the poor." There are varying income levels which correlate with the degree to which you have your shit together.

...

Kill the poor.

Never make an absolute move like that based on a moderate correlation. The point of being able to play mental simulations like this is that we can keep improving out levels of correlation until it becomes an effective causal relationship.

I'm sure the world would be better if the under "120s" just disappeared, but why is this? What is this magical quality of humans that we are trying to preserve, and what would be a better way to determine it?

Besides, it's not about money, it's about influence. Money helps you attain influence, but there are various other ways to it - some of them essentiall self-contained to a naive observer.

(And in an over-populated world, sometimes the best move for the whole is simply to not consume, i.e. to self-induce poorness. Such a subset of the population makes for good impact absorbtion any time a crisis comes close, and such a discriminatory move such as being poor = being inferior means to ignore this function of keeping the species moving in a crisis. But then, who wants to keep the species going anyway?)